love has never been a priority. marriages used to be arranged according to who gets the land. love only matters to those who want it. if it could actually fix anything, it would probably have a higher priority, but love is self-indulgent and does not last, sometimes. it's no basis for permanence, not without actual work.

love has never been a priority. marriages used to be arranged according to who gets the land. love only matters to those who want it. if it could actually fix anything, it would probably have a higher priority, but love is self-indulgent and does not last, sometimes. it's no basis for permanence, not without actual work.

love has never been a priority. marriages used to be arranged according to who gets the land. love only matters to those who want it. if it could actually fix anything, it would probably have a higher priority, but love is self-indulgent and does not last, sometimes. it's no basis for permanence, not without actual work.

I don't know if I believe that.

i've had plenty of relationships wherein if love was all we had, it would not be enough to sustain it.....and wasn't. love was never the problem. it's fine to love someone, but giving it the importance over all else is a mistake. i've seen parents indulge their kids almost to death because they 'loved them too much' to correct them. my own mother, i am certain, loved me to distraction, but she still damaged me almost irreparably, because she was crazy. love didn't cure or conquer her nuttiness.

love doesn't cure anything. if anything, love is a tonic or a soothing thing, not a solution. love doesn't make the world go around, gravity and force and sciency stuff does. loving someone coming at you with a knife in their hand won't protect you. and love is not the basic force in a relationship. i wouldnt be able to stand being with some of the people i have loved in my life, but i loved them like crazy nonetheless.

and, marriage was never about love. it was a legal contract. no one got to be with whom they loved, that was considered irresponsible and outside the marriage itself, unless you happened to fall in love with your spouse, in which case, well done and lucky you. marriage and love play a huge part in literature, but the truth is, it existed as a legal/religious matter, not an emotional one. two hundred years ago, i'd be married off to some fucktard instead of happily living with my girlfriend, and trying to figure out how to kill him so i could inherit the land my father would have left him instead of me. or whatever. you have no idea how free we are to actually fall in love now, compared to then. hell, marriage is still a legal contract, or it wouldn't be in such hot debate over whether or not gays can do it. no reason why they shouldn't, if it is all about love, right? but it isn't. people add morality and politics to it, without even blinking, because that's what it is about.

our language is also woefully inept at describing love. there is filial love, avuncular love, erotic love, self-indulgent love.......there are at least a hundred different ways to love another person, or group of people. patriotism, even, is a form of love. 'love' is too generic a term to apply to one's life in a practical way. no matter how much you love someone there are eyeroll moments. and i have seen plenty of spouses who hate one another's guts, but are too bogged down in the hamster reflex to just let one another go. but if you asked them, they would say yeah, we love each other, even if he/she is a fucktard.

i'm not saying love isn't important. but it's the worst kind of naivete to think that it is all one needs...or even the most important thing.

love has never been a priority. marriages used to be arranged according to who gets the land. love only matters to those who want it. if it could actually fix anything, it would probably have a higher priority, but love is self-indulgent and does not last, sometimes. it's no basis for permanence, not without actual work.

I don't know if I believe that.

i've had plenty of relationships wherein if love was all we had, it would not be enough to sustain it.....and wasn't. love was never the problem. it's fine to love someone, but giving it the importance over all else is a mistake. i've seen parents indulge their kids almost to death because they 'loved them too much' to correct them. my own mother, i am certain, loved me to distraction, but she still damaged me almost irreparably, because she was crazy. love didn't cure or conquer her nuttiness.

love doesn't cure anything. if anything, love is a tonic or a soothing thing, not a solution. love doesn't make the world go around, gravity and force and sciency stuff does. loving someone coming at you with a knife in their hand won't protect you. and love is not the basic force in a relationship. i wouldnt be able to stand being with some of the people i have loved in my life, but i loved them like crazy nonetheless.

and, marriage was never about love. it was a legal contract. no one got to be with whom they loved, that was considered irresponsible and outside the marriage itself, unless you happened to fall in love with your spouse, in which case, well done and lucky you. marriage and love play a huge part in literature, but the truth is, it existed as a legal/religious matter, not an emotional one. two hundred years ago, i'd be married off to some fucktard instead of happily living with my girlfriend, and trying to figure out how to kill him so i could inherit the land my father would have left him instead of me. or whatever. you have no idea how free we are to actually fall in love now, compared to then. hell, marriage is still a legal contract, or it wouldn't be in such hot debate over whether or not gays can do it. no reason why they shouldn't, if it is all about love, right? but it isn't. people add morality and politics to it, without even blinking, because that's what it is about.

our language is also woefully inept at describing love. there is filial love, avuncular love, erotic love, self-indulgent love.......there are at least a hundred different ways to love another person, or group of people. patriotism, even, is a form of love. 'love' is too generic a term to apply to one's life in a practical way. no matter how much you love someone there are eyeroll moments. and i have seen plenty of spouses who hate one another's guts, but are too bogged down in the hamster reflex to just let one another go. but if you asked them, they would say yeah, we love each other, even if he/she is a fucktard.

i'm not saying love isn't important. but it's the worst kind of naivete to think that it is all one needs...or even the most important thing.

I read it and completely agree with it. That was pretty much all I had to say about it so thought I would leave it for Mockery to respond to.

Did I ever say that all one needs is love? I don't think I did. I just think it's important in a relationship.

well clearly you're not being clear enough about the replies that you want to receive so why don't you provide some specific guidelines with each of your messages to help people construct appropriate and adequate responses to your posts?

Logged

Quote

I do not want to live to archive my own life. I see it everywhere around me, especially with the popularity of web diaries, forums, and cell phones that take pictures. I do not want to fall into the subtle trap of truly believing I Blog Therefore I Am.